However, the parent lost control over Proview Shenzhen by the time Proview Shenzhen defaults and is now taken over by the creditors. Apple can still file a claim against the parent company (which it did in Hong Kong and won). But this time Proview Shenzhen's parent have long before lost its legal power to control Proview Shenzhen as its shareholder, thus Proview Shenzhen(and its creditors) is not legally bound in anyway to transfer the trademark. The creditors have totally legitimate reasons and legal ground to refuse the transfer.

1. The parent company did not lose control. It is still the same person that is involved, Mr. Yang. Apple's claim involves Mr. Yang, his Proview companies, AND the Yoke Technology company which has been used with intent to breach the contract.

2. Proview Shenzhen and its creditors are bound by the collective written agreement entered into by Mr. Yang and his companies. Again, it is not a subsidiary with a separate CEO and directors going off in its own, it's just the same guy ~ Mr. Yang, who is shown by the Hong Kong decision to be essentailly the guy in charge of all Proview companies, including Proview Shenzhen.

3a. The creditors do not have legitimate reasons to refuse the transfer. Because Proview Shenzhen has ITSELF, through Mr. Yang as representative of Proview Shenzhen, agreed to the contract of transfer of ownership of the China Trademarks. At best it is a matter of all parties owed something trying to reclaim what is theirs. Which means somebody somewhere has to decide what to do with the assets to return them to all creditors ~ that does not necessarily mean certain creditors automatically get priority, or that even one creditor has dominant control ~ what if most of the loans to Proview Shenzhen are owned by a different bank than China Minsheng? Would China Minsheng have to go up against that bank?

3b. In any case it is not even clear what right the creditors have over the China Trademarks. Just because they are creditors does not automatically hand them the China Trademarks, nor does it give them right to block Apple from using it. As per my previous post, China Trademarks are under an "Asset Preservation Order" to China Minsheng (a creditor), in 2010 as well as to Apple itself, who was also granted an"Asset Preservation Order" in Shenzen itself, back in 2010. As such, simply put, the China iPad Trademark is not a simple matter for one for the "creditors" to decide what to do with.

There are two avenues subject to the legal system. I am not a lawyer, but the general logic applies. That's why I say it depends on how the legal system and its players decide to execute this. But my conclusions remain, as underlined.

(Path 1)
A company owes another company something. It has not delivered this. It then goes bankrupt. As such all items owed could be considered assets owed to creditors. In which case, bankruptcy law does apply, as Danny says. It needs to be determined who owns that company's assets, and how those assets can be disposed off to satisfy creditors. The complication is this ~ if the China Trademarks are an asset, then it has to be decided whose asset it is. Then, it has to be released either directly to the creditors to then release to Apple, or released to Apple directly. Fair enough that there is a huge line to claim all assets, regardless of who can dispose of it. It is an interesting area. But in any case bankruptcy law would have a tough time showing that Apple is not entitled to that asset, let alone can be blocked from using it.

(Path 2)
Apple is using the iPad trademark illegally in China. Ignoring the irony of illegal use of trademarks in China itself, let's look at the legal aspects alone. To prove this, one can say that on paper, since Proview Shenzen is listed as the owner of the China Trademarks, then someone will have to enforce this. But remember the Asset Preservation Orders for the China Trademark has been granted to China Minsheng, and to Apple by Shenzen courts. So legally, this path would have to show Apple is illegally using the iPad China Trademark even though two years ago Proview has rescinded rights to the China Trademarks, in three ways ~ China Minsheng, Apple and also in their application to transfer the China Trademarks to Yoke Technology (which, I haven't found what happened to this application. In any case, either Chinese government entities, the China trademark office or authorities, or creditors (China Minsheng being the most likely) would have to go through their own Chinese legal system to prove that Apple is using the China Trademarks illegally. Only then would they be able to block iPad from sale in China. Export blocking is probably an even bigger legal leap.

So Proview sells the rights to the name, probably thinks that it didn't negotiate for enough money the first time around and now they "refuse to honor" the agreement. China isn't becoming more capitalistic, they're becoming more like organized crime.

I assume the article is quoting an Apple spokeswoman saying Proview "refuse to honor" the agreement. The writing could be clearer.

Secondly, I'm not sure, but I think what happened is that Apple bought the rights to the trademark from a third party *before* it was worth anything. So technically, Apple is right (let's face it they are almost always right technically), but the way I heard it they paid almost nothing for what is probably one of the most valuable names on the planet right now.

This is likely all about negotiating tactics. The decision will come when the Chinese government decides who is right or wrong and pushes that party to settle. they are probably okay with the little guy wringing (or trying to) some more money out of Apple, but if Apple threatened to leave or do some other serious thing to the Chinese economy, all of a sudden this company will find itself pushed to settle.

Had this happen in any juristiction other than China, Apple would be seriously violating trademark laws.

Facts are pretty simple, if your parent lost your custody.they have no right to sell your property. (Proview Shenzhen is bankrupt, and it is now controled by the creditors and receiver as opposed to the Taiwanese parent. Proview Shenzhen is simply not bound by the agreement entered by its parent with Apple)

But Proview (all the same one guy) sold the China Trademarks before they went bankrupt, right?

I'm not sure where the "custody was lost".

And in what way is Apple violating trademark laws if it happened in other countries? A bankrupt company would get the government to block secondary dealers from selling a product whose trademark was already sold to the company they are trying to now block?